164 comments:

This does nothing but make the Republicans look bad. I cannot conceive of a single good reason why the republicans should boycott the Youtube debates (which I found to be far more refreshing than normal Chris Mattews asks horrible questions debates) after the democrats have already gone through one!!

It's either timidity about being asked questions they cannot as easily pre-screen, or simple dislike of the internet media.

Both are extremely bad positions for them to have. Shame on them. I'd have to say, as a campaigning move, this is dumber than the democrats boycotting fox.

"The CNN YouTube debate was orchestrated by MSMers with no names and no accountability for the buffoonery that ensured. The GOP candidates skipping such a circus is not the same as the Democrats passing on a Fox News Channel debate moderated by Brit Hume and Chris Wallace, and I'd blast the GOPers if they skipped an MSNBC debate. In fact I'm all for letting Keith Olbermann moderate a debate of the GOPers because poor old Keith wouldn't know what hit him. It isn't about being willing to go anywhere and answer anything, it is about refusing to walk into a media box canyon where the anonymous MSMers will have had a few days to pick the best thirty body slams from tens of thousand of moonbat-generated videos. Would Patrick recommend the GOP candidates attend a YearlyKos sponsored and nutter-moderated debate? That's what the YouTube Debate, GOP edition will be."

The next Republican debate should feature questions that are submitted by cigar-smoking big wigs (or maybe big whigs) and transported from smoke-filled rooms to the debate site by pneumatic tubes. When the question is plucked from the tube, a nice billow of smoke should accompany it. Thank the good Lord in Heaven that Fearless Republicans are resisting the Youtubification of America!!!!!

Fen: in my opinion, the GOP needs to get its act together when handling questions from a hostile media.

As I said about the Fox debates: if these candidates aren't quick enough on their feet to handle verbal assaults from a hostile press, why on earth should we feel comfortable entrusting national security to them?

Yes, yes, the media is biased against republicans and I'm sure there'd be a few real stinkers in there, but GOP needs to wise up and learn how to cope. You can't just abandon the arena.

I think if a FOX picked the YouTube vids for the GOP, they'd have no problem participating.

We could ask the Left how they would feel about FOX choosing the YouTube vids for Democrats, but the Dems won't appear on FOX in any venue, so any complaints from them about cowardice are hypocritical.

I think we have agreed here that there are too many of these damn things and the only value is watching the candidates screw up and implode. But this is "lame", some person is getting paid a lot of money to be advising the campaigns on public relations and they can't figure this out?

I think the Republicans are missing a chance to change the CNN selection thing. By that I mean over the top vids on important topics (global warming and 2d amendment). What they need to do is agree to the UTube format but insist the questions be voted on by the "people" and NOT selected by the MSM gatekeepers of any political persuasion.

Fen - that's not a good reason. It's pathetic. It's one thing to criticize the format of the debates, as Newt has done. But having endorsed the format of the debates by participating in earlier ones, candidates who participated when it was the networks lobbing softballs but not when it's actual people (concededly in videos selected by the networks, as Ann pointed out this morning) plainly convey the impression that they're afraid of being asked tough questions, of having to defend themselves and their views to a tough audience.

I want a candidate who can face a hostile room and turn around every question, explain why the questioner's wrong and Republican principles are the right answer.

Haven't we had enough of inarticulate and intellectually inept Presidents who can't defend their policies even when there are extremely strong and resonant arguments to be made for those policies?

It is about refusing to walk into a media box canyon where the anonymous MSMers will have had a few days to pick the best thirty body slams from tens of thousand of moonbat-generated videos.

But that's exactly why they should go. If you can't stand your ground against a few tough questions from average people, then you shouldn't be running for President and you mostly certainly shouldn't be collecting millions in political donations from well-meaning, hard-working Americans.

I think if a FOX picked the YouTube vids for the GOP, they'd have no problem participating.

That's it in a nutshell, and that's why. Much power goes to those who select the questions, and whoever it is would be handed blindly the carte blanche opportunity to make the Repubs look bad, something CNN would do with relish.

The Repubs blew it by not sending people out to make a much bigger deal of it, and to excoriate the Democrats, when the Dems began the boycott FOX NEWS thing. Unnecessarily ceding ground.

But this "debate" will be worthless to me as a conservative - my candidate will spend 90% of their time explaining to Moonbats what a strawman argument is. For a preview, puruse the responses to hdhouse on this blog.

I'll be very surprised if this debate offers anything of value to conservative viewers.

1. A preference for unserious questioners with a "hook" like a cute costume or waving their "Baby" - an AR-15 around because the CNN staffers knew it would make the hapless gun owner look like an idiot.

2. A CNN preference for people claiming a place on the marble pedestal of Victimhood, complete with their props like the picture of a dead son or 2 folded flags in the background to establish the Absolute Moral Authority of the U-Tuber over ordinary citizens. As if "mothers" somehow cue before wives or fathers - as if the "mothers" actually marched their adult son down to the recruiter at shotgun point to enlist..

3. The partisan bias by CNN against Republicans ensures a "gitcha, gotcha!" ambush would await.

4. The fact that they have their demand that candidates show up for one of over a half dozen debate formats that kick into gear right after Labor Day, including debates the candidates have traditionally attended. Romney notes that besides the U-Tube one, he has invites to 7 other debates in an 11-day stretch and is not ruling out the U-Tube one, but figuring out which ones his schedule will allow him to committ to.

I rather like the U-Tube format, but I believe more rules should be in place. No costumes. No claim of moral right to ask a question by personal bio. No personal sob story about the issue the candidates will be asked that forces the candidate to personally dismiss the questioner, if the candidate answers in a way that does not give "the right answer" to the questioner's set-up. No cute props or props of certified Victimhood.And, U-Tube submissions selected by a non-partisan group the candidates agree to.

Fen, that is because - as Newt has explained - the debate format is broken. There are several good criticisms of the debate format, but none of them relate to the youtube component, and none of them can be raised by those candidates who've participated in earlier debates. Fred and Newt can legitimately refuse to participate, but Guiliani cannot.

If you can't stand your ground against a few tough questions from average people, then you shouldn't be running for President and you mostly certainly shouldn't be collecting millions in political donations from well-meaning, hard-working Americans.

That isn't the concern here. What is the concern is a circus manufactured by CNN staffers to embarass the GOP. CNN can say, it wasn't us, it was the "people." Yet, everyone knows that 5% of the people are nuts. The CNN staffers will make sure to pick the videos from those 5%.

And I'd add that before the Democrat debate, candidates asked their followers to submit plenty of U-tube entries. And as much as possible, the obvious ones salted into the submissions by campaigns should be scrapped.

Such as:

Those obvious ones that seek "gotcha!" of a particular candidate or are just brown-nosed suck ups to a particular candidate.

"Is it true, Sen. Obama, that you once healed a cripple ...err...differently abled person with your touch?" "Mayor Giuliani how does it feel to be alongside candidates that never saved a city with their personal heroism." "Mitt, I'm a (cough, cough) uncommitted Independent from Utah, and I wonder if you have seen any of your rivals socialistic health care plans that you would consider better than your great 7-point one.." "As a mother who has multiple personal claims to Victimhood, Hillary, why are you so cold and uncompassionate?? When I see poor Elisabeth Edwards, my heart goes out to her and her loving faithful husband who is always at her side, why are you mean to them?????"

To whatever practical extent can be done, the U-Tube submissions should be vetted to discern if they come from "real people" not campaign staff creating U-Tube sock puppets.

This is really making me lose what respect I had for the Republican field. Clinton and Obama have been duking it out kung-fu style all over the newspapers, blogs, and t.v., and these guys are scared of Frosty the Snowman? That is so pathetic.

It occurs to me that any kind of involvement of the "internets" in a GOP debate might interfere with most of the candidates' hard-fought (so far) efforts to represent themselves as suitable to be Bush-44.

I think the best "debate" format is the one WPT sponsored last election: the 3 top candidates sit around and talk. You get to learn, then, how one differs from the other. This was mentioned during the call-in show Prof. A. was on today.

I'm not sure how well it would work in a primary though, as I suspect the top 3 Democrats would just attack Republicans, and vice versa.

Sloanasaurus said... "[Mort said that if you can't stand your ground against a few tough questions from average people, then you shouldn't be running for President, but] [t]hat isn't the concern here. What is the concern is a circus manufactured by CNN staffers to embarass the GOP."

Of course that's the concern. Of course they're going to try and create a circus, but how is this circus to be manufactured? What are the building blocks from which it will be constructed? Why, it'll be built from the only raw materials available: tough questions!

Obama is now taking his Bush-Cheney Lite audio and dispersing it nationwide for radio broadcasts.

This is what the Republicans are likely afraid of. The YouTube element really did shake things up and resulted in a brawl between the top two. If that happened on the Republican side, it benefits McCain and Fred.

Meade said... "from the linked-to WaPo article: 'Rudolph W. Giuliani and Mitt Romney, both with dozens of videos on their YouTube channels, have not signed up.' Not signing up = wussing out? Come now."

Read on, dear boy. The linked-to WaPo article continues to say that "[s]ources familiar with the Giuliani campaign said the former New York mayor is unlikely to participate," and Romney's remark makes it quite clear he doesn't intend to participate. Not hacing signed up yet is not wussing out, but not participating because you're incapable of or unwilling to face tough questions = wussing out.

The fact you ask such a question reveals how far left you are on the spectrum. CNN routinely censors by ommission and distorts the news. Conservative issues are reduced to strawmmen arguments, if they are presented at all. Go overseas and you'll that CNN International is actually worse - anti-american bias to suck up to their audience for ratings.

The most revealing case: Eason Jordon of CNN was forced to admit that CNN censored information regarding Saddam's Rape Rooms and Torture Chambers, because such information might sway your opinion on the need to depose him. Its the equivalent of the BBC deliberately witholding information of concentration camps and Jews cooked in ovens to keep British public opinion from joining the pro-war side.

The fact that you are ignorant of this, and that you continue to accept distorted news from such a discredited information broker, says much about you. Can I sell you some beachfront property in Louisiana?

-Making conservatives look bad (Hey! I'm an uneducated, banjo playing hick, from an Arkansas trailer park. And a staunch Republican. When are we going to stop letting all these black fur'neers from coming into this country, and outlaw evolution?

THe GOP should get serious. I don't want anymore debates from MSNBC. The point is not make Kieth Olbermann look bad, its to get information out to GOP voters.

Fen, your argument about FOX and the Democrats is premised on the idea that CNN is a liberal version of FOX. But that's ludicrous. FOX is to CNN as Conservapedia is to Wikipedia.

FOX News is a laughingstock. I heard a joke yesterday about Bush's recent colonoscopy discovering two Fox News correspondents.

Not very funny right? But for an interesting reason: the teller said she got it from Jay Leno. Jay Leno! The lame old bland mainstream Jay Leno writers can now apparently safely base a joke on the understanding that Fox News is administration propaganda.

All the leading Republican candidates have already answered more direct questions on serious issues in serious venues than the Dhims will face before November 2008. This supposed issue is a manufactured joke. You've been sucked in again, Pookie.

Mortimer, who has apparantly signed on with the Obama-God who will forgive all liberal's ancestor's sins in his moral authority - extols the genius of Obama's tactic calling Bill and Hillary Clinton "Bush-lite".

Yeah, that is sure to just resonate with Democrat voters and Independents that remember the "Bush-Lite" Years of Horror! You know, the people that reject leadership more competent than the Bush peoples - like the Clintons - and wish to roll the dice with an untested "Magic Negro" lighweight who delivers awesome platitudes, little policy..

Looks like the Ned Lamont "nutsroots" people who ran on Lieberman being "Bush-Lite" have found a happy new home for their winning message, with the same likely outcome.

Before I went to the WaPo article, I assumed that they had previously agreed, but are now backing out. That would be cowardly. But after reading the article, that is not at all clear to me. CNN just assumed they show up? I don't understand how this was organized. Can anybody explain it?

"The debates of both parties have become boring, repetitive and generally ridiculous.

Can we take a month or two off from this nonsense?"

This is exactly why the YouTube debate was much more interesting than any others. Why is the GOP afraid of answering questions that aren't scripted? Hasn't the entire Bush Debacle been in front of a scripted audience, and isn't everyone tired of that?

base a joke on the understanding that Fox News is administration propaganda.

That is interesting Roost, because I find that most other mainstream outlets carry water for the democrats.

The big differenced as always in the debate on partisanship and the mediad is that conservatives accept there is bias on Fox and talk radio but liberals continue to deny that NPR,CNN, CBS, NYTimes, WashPost, NBC, ABC and all the rest are liberal.

As a liberal, I would not get my news from any of those sources you listed. What you fail to understand is that they are "mainstream media" to the left as well.

CNN is not the antithesis of Fox, nor are any of those networks. Fox is in a class by itself. Conservatives have been crying wolf about this for so long it's ridiculous. Which is what spawned the "reality has well-known liberal bias" comment. Right-wingers don't want bad news about "their guys."

"The fact you ask such a question reveals how far left you are on the spectrum."

If you're right Fen, and only someone on the far left of the political spectrum would raise that question, then you have nothing to worry about in 2008. The Republicans will hold the White House and take back both chambers. In a landslide.

From here, it doesn't exactly look like you've got your finger on the pulse.

And Sloan, I'd refer you to my 3:27. If the only source of untainted information is FOX News, and everything else is controlled by a powerful cabal of (anti-corporate?) elites, you'd better hope that most of the country sees as clearly as you do.

CNN is not the antithesis of Fox, nor are any of those networks. Fox is in a class by itself.

No, CNN is not the antithesis of FOX. CNN is a left-wing propaganda organ. FOX at least provides opportunity for Democrat strategists to come on and present their side in a fair and balanced venue. If fact, FOX no longer presents conservative pov's - they are too concerned with the underwear sniffing rubberneck of Chandra/Lacy/Natalie and the celebrity scandals of Britney/Paris/Lindsey.

But the fact that you cannot recognize the bias of CNN says alot about your ideology. As does you completely ignoring my point about Eason Jordon's admission that CNN deliberately kept news from you that didn't dovetail with their agenda.

rcocean said... "The point of the debates is to provide information to Republican voters."

And part of that information is whether they can stand up under tough questions, which is also (in answer to Meade) why not showing up because you're afraid of a tough room is wussing out, and why yes, this does matter.

There are serious, systemic problems with the debate format, yes, but these candidates have already accepted that format. All that's changed now is now tough the questions are.

danny said... "Fen ... seem[s] to be getting [his] information from a source that is unbiased. What is it?"

All sources are biased. Period. The only corrective is to read widely, critically, and often.

Roost: If you're right Fen, and only someone on the far left of the political spectrum would raise that question, then you have nothing to worry about in 2008. The Republicans will hold the White House and take back both chambers. In a landslide.

Complete non sequitor. Do you still trust CNN as an information broker when confronted with an admission that they withheld information of Saddam's rape rooms and torture chambers from you?

Would you continue to trust a stock broker who withheld information of Enron's maleficience?

Is so, you are a sheep who's opinion is so distorted by propaganda that its rendered moot. Baaa! Baaa!

On April 11, 2003, Jordan revealed that CNN knew about human rights abuses committed in Iraq by Saddam Hussein since 1990, but the network refrained from coverage of them in order to gain better access to information on Hussein's government. Jordan maintained that complete reporting would have jeopardized the lives of Iraqi informants, and confidentiality was ensured to protect the lives of anti-Hussein Iraqi activists and translators.

If the only source of untainted information is FOX News, and everything else is controlled by a powerful cabal

Roost, I never claimed Fox did not slant to the right. They do. Most other stations slant left.

The media tends to slant left in general because most people who go into journalism tend to be liberal. Journalism is a career that attracts people who want to "save the world" These tend to be liberals. If 90% of the people in the industry are liberal, the media outlets are bound to be mostly liberal except the few places where an effort is made to be less liberal(i.e. Fox).

Simon: All sources are biased. Period. The only corrective is to read widely, critically, and often

Exactly. I get my opposition opinion from the left-leaning Washington Post. They have a bias, but of all the left-leaning newspapers, they appear to be doing the most to correct the bias of "shared values" amoung MSM reporters - replacing assertion and opinion with pure fact.

And I don't even follow FOX news anymore [beacause of the underwear-sniffing rubberneck I described above]

BTW, if you're a leftist anti-war type who is not reading Micheal Yon, you are seriously misinformed.

My intention wasn't to defend CNN, it was to point out that the assertion that most people think of CNN as a "left-wing propaganda organ" is wildly delusional.

When your bald assertion that CNN is a left-wing propaganda organ was questioned, you responded basically by saying anyone who didn't know that in their bones already is so far left as to be not worth talking to.

The political spectrum you've drawn puts CNN on the fringe left. That's fine and dandy, but good luck in '08.

Whatever happened to real debates between politicians who take a stance on a resolution and argue it with constructives, cross examination and rebuttal? These televised infomercials only offer shallow, fungible sound bites for the candidates, face time on the cam, and, wrt to Repubs, hostile partisan point-making by immoderate moderators, planted "audience members", and after-the-show pundits who turn their performances into either high comedy or tragedy.

Viewers gain a lot of nothing, except insight into whether their voices cracked, their brows sweated, and they stumbled on an answer to a "why do you beat your wife" kind of question.

Roost: My intention wasn't to defend CNN, it was to point out that the assertion that most people think of CNN as a "left-wing propaganda organ" is wildly delusional.

No. Having an opinion that FOX is right-wing biased and CNN is centrist is "wildly delusional". Again, you completely ignored my point that if the MSM was "balanced", conservatives would have no need to set up a parallel venue via AM talk radio in the 80's. Do you not understand basic economics? If half you client base flees to another venue, then you must not be representing their interests fairly.

When your bald assertion that CNN is a left-wing propaganda organ was questioned, you responded basically by saying anyone who didn't know that in their bones already is so far left as to be not worth talking to.

I also provided the example of Eason Jordon admitting that CNN censored information of Saddam's rape rooms and torture chambers. Can you not see that such information would have swayed people into agreeing that Saddam's regime should be overthrown? Do you think anti-war opinion in Britain during WW2 would have been swayed with the knowledge of Hitler's gas chamnbers? Bottom line: CNN was feeding you lefty propaganda [censorship of ommission] and you swallowed it.

No dtl. For the third time, people like you have no right to criticise the GOP on this. GOP candidates have appeared on CNN to field questions by Chris Mathews; Democrat candidates are too afraid to appear on FOX and field questions from Brit Hume.

The only Democrats who have standing to criticize the GOP on this are the ones who criticized Dems for boycotting FOX. You're not one of them.

Meade said... "[All that's changed now is now tough the questions are?] Baloney. The questions the other night on CNN were not tough."

They were tougher than the questions posed in previous debates, and because they "seem" to be from ordinary people rather than the network, they have the potential to be tougher than anything the network can ask. And since we're talking about anticipation of future events, those are the key points.

danny said... "First Translation: we don't want our Republicans to have to answer any tough questions from real people."

Have you been paying attention at all to this thread, where most of "[us] Republicans" have been harshly critical of the candidates who haven't signed up to this debate precisely because we do "want our Republicans to have to answer any tough questions from real people"?

Perhaps you could post examples of the typical "tough question" you believe CNN will cherrypick from youtube submittals? No, not the ones you would pick. The ones CNN would pick from their version of "real people".

What a fascinating juxtaposition that is! Seems familiar! Okay, so let's unpack this:

1. Are "real people" never biased?2. Are "real people" never right wing?3. Who are "Fox News People"?4. What's a "real pe[rson]?5. Is Mitch McConnell a "right wing mouthpiece"? Is Nancy Pelosi a "liberal mouthpiece"?

Danny: Yes, I've been paying attention to what those nuts Fen and Sloan have been saying!

I've already changed my position, agreeing with Simon and other Republicans that the GOP candidates should participate in CNN's YouTube debate.

Danny: Fox news people aren't "real people." They are the biased right-wing mouthpiece.

The fact that you believe that while simultaneously maintaining that CNN is "centrist" disqualifies you from this discussion. So indeed, run away and have a nice weekend, like your Democrat cowards who are cowards for refusing to debate on FOX.

Note that you dodged my point again re the MSM: if the MSM was fair and balanced, why would conservatives have the need to start up a parallel venue via AM talk radio to express their opinions and present their issues?

Likewise, would you insist Democrats appear on a FOX-hosted YouTube debate?

P. Rich - I think you need to clarify the question, but if you mean what kind of thing am I anticipating, I imagine that you will get questions that are tougher on the war, tougher on spending and that are generally far more direct and blunt than the kind of questions that a journalist can ask while maintaining the affect of neutrality. And I'm fine with that. But predicting specific questions? How should I know!

I guess Mort is saying there is no role for the former Clinton Administration officials in a err...new Clinton Administration and we can expect Hillary to be quite different than ...err her past role and advice...and be Bush-Lite!!!

If you embrace this tactical brilliant logic of Barack Obama, more power to you!

Just remember it's the same nutsroots people that convinced Ned Lamont to run against Joe Lieberman as "Bush-Lite" for months now working their magic inside Obama's campaign. A slogan liberal CT voters, aware of Lieberman's policy positions and liberal voting record outside Iraq, dismissed as "stupid".

Obama is being "schooled" by the Clintonistas. Poor guy had no clue it was coming.

I would ask you the same question I posed to Danny before he ran away: would you insist Democrat candidates appear on a FOX-hosted YouTube debate?

It ain't my style to insist that anybody do anything. However, I would prefer to see the Dems debate on Fox News. I want to see the candidates deal with tough questions in high stress environments. There are some very smart, ruthless people roaming around the planet that our presidents have to deal with....Debating in challenging environments might better help me determine who is up to the task.

"What's worse -- questions from the public, many of whom are supporters, or questions from the media, who many Republicans believe are biased? This is YouTube. That's not something they'd want to snub," Ruffini said.

Actually, it's not "questions from the public." It's questions from the public carefully screened and chosen by the media, who many Republicans believe are biased.

I sorta liked the YouTube idea to some extent (seeing people on YouTube asking the questions made it more entertaining and connected the questions more to real people in the real world), but that debate was still lame.

For example, if CNN wants to do a debate exclusively between the front-runners, they should do so and then explain to the public why they've already decided for the public who the real candidates are at this early stage of the campaign. But if they're gonna invite the full field, they should be treated equally, which includes equal time to talk. I don't like this appearance of being inclusive and fair to all the Democratic candidates when in fact it's set up in a completely unfair manner.

Also, I'd like to have a better idea of how questions are chosen. We're still getting a lot of the same types of questions we always get in debates, just this time with the YouTube gimmick. They were also selected in order to control which candidates spoke the most.

Some of those questions are good and important, but I'd like to see how many good questions on other topics were rejected and why they were rejected.

Maybe there could be some sort of set up where all the legit, interesting, fun, and/or serious questions were separated from those unfit for a debate, and then a computer program would randomly select them during the debate, and CNN and the candidates would have no idea which ones they'd be.

To prevent repeat of topics, they could still set it up so that if the computer randomly selected, say, a health care question, the bundle of multiple health care questions that best followed each other up would be the ones that came up, and then no more health care questions could come up the rest of the way.

So, I'd like to see a debate with YouTubes from the public where any of the YouTubes from a massive pool could come up at any moment, except those that are clearly unsuitable for a debate, or those that repeat questions/topics already asked. That would be exciting!

30 days for Youtube submittals. Each candidate gets to pick 2 video questions that the OTHER candidates must answer and 1 that he wants to answer. And they have to address the other question to a specific canidates.

Bottom line, I have nothing against Youtube. But the idea that CNN is doing to pick responsible questions that CONSERVATIVES want answers to, is nil.

Not only that but the video and answers will go into the MSM databank and will pulled up whenever they want to embarass Rommney, Gulliani, Hunter, etc.

The lameness is that people who are evidently serious think that it is suitable for Presidential candidates of any party to answer questions from cartoon snowmen, dogs or Santa Claus and not real people with real names.

Good God people! IS this what we have come to? I could give two turds about the YouTube "debate". The lowest voting demographic is that of the YouTube generation.

I respect the GOP MORE for not pandering to this pop culture idiocy.

I have friends who have been KIA and WIA and you guys think YouTube is Important Stuff?

W T F?

If you think YouTube is an appropriate place to grill the next leader of the free world who will be elected in the middle of a war, I ask you to grow up a tad and realise just how stupid you come off to people like me.

They're all afraid someone will as if Gonzo is lying, why the Tillman death deserve executive privilege protection, why no one will testify under oath, what their plan of action is for getting out of Iraq, how long we should stay, why they're against national health care, why they continue to support Bush...and of course, what they'll be doing for a living after the 2008 elections.

This CNN = Fox News business should really be put to rest. You can argue that CNN has a slight liberal bias but the notion that Fox News isn't a Republican biased outfit is just plain foolish. Take the funny pages(editorial section)out of the WSJ, and you have a conservatively biased paper that while leaning right shows respect for stories that may lean left for journalistic purposes. As opposed to Fox News, who have significantly shortened their coverage of war once it turned, consistently ask if the Democrats are for Al Qaeda, were pro-immigration reform despite conservative disapprovals, and have hosts like Cavuto, who made an interview with the President look more akin to a dog humping his masters leg. If Fox was conservative I would understand, but they are just partisan Republicans.

Invisible Man, you seem to assume that because CNN (or the rest of the MSM) is not biased in precisely the same way as Fox, that they are somehow less pervasively biased. As I've said in comments passim, on Fox News, you discover that there are two sides to every story, and the liberal side is stupid. In the MSM (excluding Fox), you rarely find out that there is another side of the story, you're just told the story as it appears through the neutral eyes of a liberal reporter, a liberal anchor and a liberal editor - i.e. the story from a liberal perspective.

And frankly, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. But we have to move past this ludicrous idea that value freedom is possible. Max Weber buried it a century ago. All news is biased because every person is biased; the best way to get past that isn't to pretend it isn't so, it's to openly admit one's perspective and allow the reader to correct as appropriate.

So, for example, Ann's radio segment this morning talked about NPR's bias; the problem with NPR isn't that they lean left, it's that they don't get that they lean left. They really believe - with polygraph-passing sincerity - that they embody fair, reasoned, balanced and objective reporting.

O yes, I am so sure that the last thing that went thru SPC Rodriguez' mind as the life poured out of him was "Please Please let the next set of presidential candidates answer questions from a cartoon snowman. It is democracy at its finest. I have given my all for that."

You make me puke.

How about a real debate with the questions being asked by live human beings instead of God knows what CGI sockpuppet is mouthing?

I ask again, do you folks really grasp how shallow this makes you look? It's bad enough we have to put up with the "new improved" forever-campaign. Now YouTube has to be a forum? HAS to be? YOUTUBE?

MadisonMan - well, in large part, it's neoconservative. Back when that word had actual meaning - before it was drained of all coherent content and turned into a partisan codeword for "person who ought to be killed" by the nutsroots - the ideas of "big government conservatism" or "compassionate conservatism" that were the hallmarks of neoconservative thought aptly described this administration.

I suspect that the main concern here is with the silliness, not with the relative toughness of the questions.

Perhaps a different venue could be offered, with user submitted questions, minus the talking snowmen.

That and I think Fox News should announce their own user submitted video question debate for the Democratic candidates. Good way to get some easy press when the Democratic candidates once again refuse to appear on the network.

SGT Ted - I have friends who have been KIA and WIA and you guys think YouTube is Important Stuff?

SGT Ted, conservatives also climb onto the marble pedestal of Victimhood and like "mothers of soldiers" claim only their views matter and have authority and all other policy issues immigration/health care/china/environment, etc., don't matter --because --- because --PEOPLE ARE DYING IN IRAQ FOR CHRISSAKE AND BUSH MUST HAVE OUR SUPPORT!!!!!

Just as bogus.

There is all too much of people claiming only their issue is moral and legitimate.

There is all too much of people playing the passive-aggressive victim part introducing a position on an issue with their a recounting of their personal biography as legitimating it, delegitimating other views.

The end of June, at the town budget fight, I heard these lines of shit

"I am here as a mother, a person of color, and a breast cancer survivor who supports the new budget."

"As the father of a daughter in the Reserves, who is to deploy to support the Iraq and Afghan mission soon, I support the budget proposal."

"I work as a doctor in helping hundreds of kidney patients a year. My wife is a nurse. I oppose the budget as too expensive..."

I mean, WTF!

Can't people just discuss the issue anymore? Does being a black woman with breast cancer in remission honestly confer moral superiority when discussing a rec center upgrade and hiring two extra cops and teachers and one sewer plant worker???

If someone dresses as a snowman to discuss global warming but they also have a sister who was hurt by a drunk driver, would that make Romney morally obligated to take them seriously? Or if the snowman had a 2nd cousin "serving". (And in that case, is the candidate morally obligated to say a pro forma - "Thank you snowman, for your 2nd cousin's service"???)

It shows a certain amount of courage to speak from the lecturn in the lion's den, at least. Scalia went and preached the world to the ACLU recently, live on CSPAN, and he isn't even running for office. A willingness to reach out, to be willing to advocate your views even in unpopular times and unfavorable settings speaks volumes about a candidate's character.

Love this from Rick Moran, replying to Hugh Hewitt: "For God’s sake, Hugh! These people want to be President of the United States! If they can’t stand up to a little tough questioning from Democratic partisans (CNN included) how in God’s name are they going to stand up to Ahmadinejad who I guarantee will feel a helluva lot more empowered come November, 2008 than a gay guy from New York asking about gay marriage!"

Simon, I agree with your point that everyone has a bias and to seek to completely remove that is ridiculous. But the problem with Fox is much worse than just a mere bias. They are a partisan network that draws not even the slightest line between news and opinion. CNN, WSJ, and MSNBC are news organizations that carry some idealogical biases on some stories but overall don't attempt to provide news in the hope of one side or another winning on the topic. Fox barely hides from providing a platform for the Republican party and its interests, while providing some news in the middle to maintain their ability to be considered a legitimate news organization, which they aren't. Whatever people want to say about Rathergate, in the end Rather was sent packing. The chances of some serious mea culpa over labeling Mark Foley a D, making Obama out to be a fundamentalist or any other violation of the public trust that helps Republicans are slim and none.

As a libertarian, I don't have a dog in this fight of whether or not the Reps should attend the YouTube debate, but I do want to address Danny's and Roost's assertions that the American public does not find CNN biased. They do. In fact, Rasmussen just recently released a poll concerning this:

Similar results are found for CNN and National Public Radio (NPR). By a margin of 33% to 16%, Americans say that CNN has a liberal bias.

That makes it pretty clear doesn't it.

What is more interesting is that more people find Fox unbiased than find CNN unbiased:

When it comes to delivering news without bias, 37% believe NPR accomplishes that goal. Thirty-six percent (36%) say the same for Fox and 32% believe it’s true of CNN.

So you guys can continue to believe that only Fox is seen as biased by the public, but you are sadly mistaken.

I don't think the You Tube debate was any kind of "pop culture idiocy." I thought the questions were as good, or better, than the questions a professional journo would ask. The biases behind them were completely clear. The failings of that debate were all CNNs, not the You Tubers.

If the GOP gets a lot of liberal questions, so what? They should answer them. I mean, what kind of hermetically sealed environment do these bozos expect? Mitt Romney's dismissal of the "snow man" question is especially lame. What is he saying, he doesn't like it when Americans decide to get a little creative? The question itself was completely serious.

Invisible Man, I can understand why someone from the lft, views FOX as a partisan network. After all, most of Fox's shows are hosted by obvious conservatives and most of its shows are "news analysis" rather than News. However, the networks are guilty of more insidious bias. As Simon discussed above, they will report the liberal point of view as if it is the news rather than a point of view. Or they will report news without context for the purpose of furthering a specific agenda item. On Fox you will often get a conservative alternative to the standard liberal news nugget. schools. On CNN or CBS etc.. you just get the liberal point of view. Thats it.

Fox News has an agenda - and guess what? That agenda doesn't include "news". It includes propaganda.

If you solely watched Fox News as your source for "news", you would have no idea that we're making zero progress in Iraq, you'd have no clue that Valerie Plame was a covert agent when she was outed by the Bush Administration, you'd have no clue that torture was committed by American troops in Abu Ghrbaig, you would think that we found WMD's in Iraq, you would think that Iraq attacked us on 9/11, and you would think that Al Queada is the biggest threat in Iraq.

Why should Democrats endorse those lies?

Youtube is made of ordinary people and anyone can post there. There are no ideological litmus tests. Are we surprised that Republicans are afraid of real people? I'm not.

I just read the story you linked. Surprisingly, it was Tommy Thompson who made that comment. Fred Thompson, who I was expecting, has not committed for a different reason -- technically, he's not a candidate.

After all, most of Fox's shows are hosted by obvious conservatives and most of its shows are "news analysis" rather than News.

Ya know...

I know this is inviting trolls to have their usual Pavlovian cow, but to be strictly accurate, you should insert the words "prime time" in front of "Fox's shows." O'Reilly, Hannity and some of the others are obvious right-wingers.

But the daytime news is far more straightforward and reliable. It fails to exclude conservative points of view, which is what bugs the politicos who downtownlad slavishly follows. But he has not real idea how Fox covered any of the issues he listed, because, like most liberals, he knows what he knows about their programming third-hand. It's a badge of honor not to watch it. If he ever talked about a news story he'd heard on Fox at a cocktail party and someone caught him out, he'd be shunned. But from what I can tell, Bush critics, war critics and liberal politicos get plenty of airtime during the day on Fox, without having to endure stupid Hannity-type questioning.

The questions are selected by a committee of 6 repubs. and 6 dem. voters by secret ballot. (I think that this might tend to limit the questions to serious ones that are of interest to everyone.)

Each and every candidate must give an answer to each question. (time limits strictly enforced)

The candidates can see and hear the questions but they are wearing headphones and are not allowed to hear the other candidates answers. (no playing off an opponents answer and no moderator dishing questions to a prefered answerer.)

Their two leading prime time shows (I assume) are the O'Reilly Factor and Hannity & Colmes. Bill O'Reilly is a conservative but he often bucks Republican spin. I know you guys find that hard to believe, but it's true. He's been critical of Bush's Iraq policy for quite a long time now, for example. Hannity & Colmes is the most partsian show, but one host spews GOP spin and the other host spews Democrat spin. That show is pretty obnoxious, but it does present the talking points from both parties.

No doubt. Downtown, you lie like the best of them. FOr fun, I will take your premises and give you an alternative pint of view.

If you solely watched MSM as your source for "news", you would have no idea that we're fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq, you'd have no clue that no underlying crime was actually commited in the Plame case, you'd have no clue that the crimes at Abu Garib were commited by a few bad soldiers rather that by the U.S. Military as a whole as ordered by Bush Cheney. You would think that no democrat ever thought there were WMDs in Iraq such as Bill and Hillary Clinton, you would think that Iraq was a peaceful loving country before 9-11.

It will be fun watching the MSM carry water for Clinton in the upcoming election.

Read Sloanasaurus's comment immediately above. Laugh at it of course. Pity him? Perhaps but he should be smart enough to know better. Make fun of him? Certainly, as his little periscope to the world is of course, sharply out of focus.

Just think, if your life is bad, you could have him as a boss. Can you imagine. The phrase "my boss is such a shithead" would take on all new meaning.

Do you have anything whatsoever, even a definition of MSM, that would start as a talking point about FACTS that support your suppositions or just like everything else you say, do you just reach in and pull these ideas out of your ass?

Cedarford, Fen, and Mitt Romney all make the argument against the YouTube debates: It's not "serious," the questions are by "snowmen," there shouldn't be "costumes," etc. Why? What's wrong with these gimmicks? Don't gimmicks make it more likely that the viewers will be entertained, which makes it more like that people will watch, which makes it more likely that the populace will be politically engaged?

Also, I hope that since Mitt Romney is taking this position, he will make sure not to participate in any campaign stops or photo-ops that involve costumes or humor.

John: Cedarford, Fen, and Mitt Romney all make the argument against the YouTube debates: It's not "serious," the questions are by "snowmen," there shouldn't be "costumes," etc.

Thats not my argument. My points are:

1) The GOP should be consistent - having already agreed to appear on normal MSM debates hosted by leftists, they have no standing to refuse to appear on CNN's YouTube format.

2) However, one difference from previous lefty-sponsored debates is that CNN can screen and use loaded vids to attack GOP candidates without accountability. Its not Chris Mathews asking loading questions, its the "people", carefully screened and censored to suit CNNs bias.

3) As the CNN staff will be selecting the vids, I doubt the GOP debate will have much value for conservative viewers - 90% of the candidate responses will be explaining the definition of "strawman argument" to Moonbat contributers.

4) Democrats have no standing to criticize the GOP on this, as their own candidates won't even show up on FOX in any format, whereas the GOP has already debated on CNN with Chris Mathews.

5) Try to imagine FOX hosting a YouTube debate for the Dems, with FOX staff screening out serious liberal-viewer questions and replacing them with cheap shots from conservative viewers.

Whatever people want to say about Rathergate, in the end Rather was sent packing.

Thats not the instructive part of the scandal. Whats more telling than the CBS hoax is their arrogance and laziness in defending the hoax. People who cheat are usually caught because they get sloppy - they've gotten away with it for so long that they no longer feel the need to invest energy into the deception. Its like coming home a half-hour early from work and finding your wife in your bedroom with another man.. and naively thinking its the first time she's cheated on you.

Rathergate, through CBS's arrogance and sloppiness, tells us that the MSM has been cheating us for a very long time. How many other MSM hoaxes have you swallowed before Mapes et al were outed?

2) However, one difference from previous lefty-sponsored debates is that CNN can screen and use loaded vids to attack GOP candidates without accountability. Its not Chris Mathews asking loading questions, its the "people", carefully screened and censored to suit CNNs bias.

So, your real concern is that viewers might think a disproportionate number of their fellow Americans are left wing? Or that the preponderance of such questions (if that's what actually ensues) will somehow hypnotize everyone else into agreeing with the left?

I think you need to give the audience a bit more credit for knowing their own minds.

If CNN runs a bunch of questions like "Why did you let Bush get away with lying about WMDs in Iraq?" or "Why do you want to give the tax cuts only to the rich?" that will help the candidates, not hurt them.

In any event, it's too late. People are already posting questions on YouTube, and the expectation has been created that answers will come. If not during a network-sponsored debate, then on YouTube itself, or the candidates' own sites. The debate last week was a no-turning-back moment.

Fen's point one (10:31 comment) says better whatI've been trying to articulate - candidates can legitimately stay out of this debate, but not candidates who've already participated in earlier MSM-run debates. The legitimate avenue of attack is the underlying format of the debates, but Guiliani et al have waived that attack by participation. Where I part ways with Fen is somewhere in the middle of his point 2 - of course, we're going to see a somewhat more obnoxious form of lamppost journalism at work in question selection. My argument is that a candidate who can't handle tough questions doesn't belong in the race. If you can't think on your feet and articulate an answer explaining why your policy - and by proxy, why Republican policy - is the right answer, that doesn't make you a bad person, but it ought to disqualify you from serious consideration as the Republican nominee for President of the United States. I'm sick to the back teeth of watching an intellectually incapable President rarely try and invariably fail to explain why policies which are easily defensible are correct. I'm sickened that this administration is so unbelievably incapable of communicating basic civics that they've permitted the dems to turn an uncontroversial use of the President's pwer to fire U.S. Attorneys into a consuming scandal. I want a President who understands policy and can and will explain why ours is better than theirs. I do not accept the incumbent as the baseline.

This debate would be somewhat different to earlier debates, but not (IMO) in a way that exuses earlier participation and refusal to participate now.

I agree with point four, but I would criticize democrats who lacked the courage not to show up in the scenario illustrated in point five. These people are running for President. They're looking for the wrong job if they don't want to have to explain their position to a hostile room.

So, your real concern is that viewers might think a disproportionate number of their fellow Americans are left wing? Or that the preponderance of such questions (if that's what actually ensues) will somehow hypnotize everyone else into agreeing with the left?

No, my real concern is that CNN staffers will primarily select "gotcha" vids that will 1) only serve to embarass candidates, not stimulate debate and 2) not address the concerns/questions of conservative voters.

3 hours of "how long have you been beating your wife" is not a debate.

/via Hugh Hewitt

"I used YouTube questions already submitted for the GOP presidential candidates to quiz Fred Barnes and Morton Kondracke on today's segment with them. I spent the first hour playing dozens of them and answering them. (The audio for the show will be posted here later). They are full of lunatic assumptions and hard left fevers. Which is why Josh Marshall, Andrew Sullivan and bunches of other pundits unfriendly to the GOP want the Republicans to drive up to the debate in Michael Dukakis' tank wearing John Kerry's Teletubby HazMat suit and take questions culled by CNN's lefties for two hours."

Having served in Somolia, I know its a stupidly naive loaded question. We provided food at first, the warlords intercepted it using force, and the nutrition we provided only served to help the warlords oppress the population more effectively.

Again, if the YouTube vids were screened by a balanced panel [like Brit Hume of FOX and Mara Liason of NPR] the GOP would have no problem participating in the YouTube debates.

I haven't read all of the posts so I may have missed an argument that could convince me otherwise....however, if you are an Althousian GOP apologist who has criticized the dems for skipping out on Foxnews and at the same time support the pubs declining the Utube/CNN thing then....pop goes another notch on the credibility belt. You just seem to be making deposits in the bank of BS if you support one party's cherry picking and not the others.

Mindsteps: if you are an Althousian GOP apologist who has criticized the dems for skipping out on Foxnews and at the same time support the pubs declining the Utube/CNN thing then....pop goes another notch on the credibility belt.

For your YouTube criticism to be equivalent, you would have to advocate Democrats appearing on a FOX-hosted YouTube debate, with FOX staff selecting conservative submitted "gotcha" vids over liberal "legitimate" questions.

For your YouTube criticism to be equivalent, you would have to advocate Democrats appearing on a FOX-hosted YouTube debate, with FOX staff selecting conservative submitted "gotcha" vids over liberal "legitimate" questions.

For your YouTube criticism to be equivalent, you would have to advocate Democrats appearing on a FOX-hosted YouTube debate, with FOX staff selecting conservative submitted "gotcha" vids over liberal "legitimate" questions.

I suspect that the dems and the pubs do a cost benefit analysis with respect to the venue, etc. Maybe the avoidance of potentially looking bad trumps the impression that you appear fragile when you avoid debates by the major cable news outlets.

By the way, there will never be equivalence.....you can always find differences in these sorts of rather scenarios. You are not going to get perfect standardization outside to a controlled scientific lab. Fen, you can highlight the differences and argue from there and I can focus on the similarities.

Interestingly, most of the candidates are lawyers, quite used to formulating 'gotcha' questions. I would like to see them field them. Maybe you have testified in court, had a deposition taken....some people do it for a living. You can look real bad sometimes and sometimes you can make the questioner look foolish.

It's a grind...but it can help separate the wheat from the chaff.

For me, I see both the dems and the pubs engaging in political bs and I see you defending one party's bs over another.

Mindteps: if you view the situation from a partisan perspective I can see your point.

That doesn't make sense. I'm treating both CNN and FOX as biased. If I were "partisan" I would insist FOX is neutral while CNN is not [the same thing you are doing, in reverse].

The only thing "partisan" is maintaining the other side [FOX] is biased while your side [CNN] is not. Its ridiculous.

I'd also not the the conservatives on this board admit to a FOX bias, while the left refuses to admit to a CNN/MSM bias. Likewise, a super-majority conservative blogosphere thinks the GOP should not skip the CNN YouTube debates and are chastising republicans that refuse to appear; while the left side of the blogosphere is still maintaining a boycott of FOX. Interesting examples of integrity and credibility...

Simon said... Mindsteps said..."I haven't read all of the posts so I may have missed an argument that could convince me otherwise...."

Well, why don't you take the time to read them, and reserve comment until such time.

Simon:

Do you have a particular axe to grind with me? I was acknowledging that I may have missed a comment. However, I believe I read enough of the comments (probably at or over 90% of them) to offer an opinion that was reasonably up to standard for this particular thread. Also, while I sometimes attempt to read all of the comments on some of the threads I have been known to accidentally skip some, misread some, and make other unintentional errors. I must confess, that I don't consistently process these comments at a depth that I might, say, process a document that has particular import for me.

Is it your opinion that one should only comment on a thread only after they have read all of the comments? Do you? Maybe it would be interesting to take a poll and determine how many people read each and every comment before they decide to weigh in. I suspect that I am not the only one that does not read them all prior to joining in.

No, I'm merely pointing out that the Left is worse on this, and that Democrats who have not criticized their party's boycott of FOX have no standing to complain about GOP refusing to appear on CNNs YouTube debate.

I'm reminding the Left that GOP has already appeared on CNN debates, while the Dems continue to boycott FOX.

And Simon's 2:53 argument has persuaded me to change my mind: I do agree that the Republicans are wussing out on the YouTube debate.

I'd also note that the conservatives on this board admit to a FOX bias, while the Left refuses to admit to a CNN/MSM bias. Likewise, a super-majority of conservative bloggers think the GOP should not skip the CNN YouTube debates and are chastising republicans that refuse to appear; while the left side of the blogosphere is still maintaining a boycott of FOX. Interesting examples of integrity and credibility...

That doesn't make sense. I'm treating both CNN and FOX as biased. If I were "partisan" I would insist FOX is neutral while CNN is not [the same thing you are doing, in reverse].

Not necessarily. There are other ways to exprress partisanship. Apparently, the distinctions you are making between each party's avoidant behavior are important to you. You believe that the pubs are still less cowardly then the dems because they are willing to go on CNN in some capacity while the Dems are not willing to go on Fox at all (although I have not read where Fox News has proposed a Youtube style debate and even if they did, the dems still might run for the hills).

For me, the distinctions you are making are not meaningful. Both parties are chosing to avoid venues on major news outlets deemed biased.

For you, this distinction is important. For me, the similarities between the two party's avoidant behavior carry much more weight.

If you tell me that you tend to focus on these kinds of details when analyzing candidates and parties and that you are not partisan then I will take you at face value.

Mindsteps, I have a problem with what I perceived you were saying: coming into a thread, declaring that you haven't read the comments, and then making sweeping assertions about the credibility of what you assume is what commenters have been saying. Now, if (as your clarification suggests) you were actually saying that you had read the comments and were merely acknowledging that you of course might have missed one or two, then I apologize for the misunderstanding, although I think you may have missed several. ;)

With that having been said, in general, while I don't insist that invariably "one should only comment on a thread only after they have read all of the comments," I do think that it's usually bad form to do so, a fortiori if what you're actually doing isn't ofering a comment on the story, but an attack on the other commenters (e.g. "if you are an Althousian GOP apologist who has criticized the dems for skipping out on Foxnews..."). There's nothing more inane than a drive-by post that says "I haven't read all the comments, but here's my two cents" and it's something that's already been thoroughly chewed over upthread.

As to whether I do, I certainly try to. I'm sure there have been exceptions, but they are hopefully few and far between. Something you'll notice is that if I haven't participated in a thread within the first fifty or seventy comments or so, I usually don't get involved at all, because I think it would take too long to get up to speed with everything that's been said and to integrate into the argument. Of course, there's exceptions, but that's generally been my approach.

Even from a purely utilitarian standpoint, think about it: if you don't have enough respect for the people you would engage with to read their comments, how can you ask them to respect your contribution enough to read it?

This tit-for-tat argument stopped working in my youth. It reminds me of the silly Michael Moorer = Ann Coulter meme that Republicans seem to trot out. No one is saying that Michael Moore isn't confrontational, isn't a rabble-rouser and isn't somewhat extreme, but he doesn't have fantasy's of his political enemies deaths. You would think that there might be some reasonable differentiation, between him and Ann, but many seem more than eager to muddy the waters to equate them.

The same thing is going on with your arguments with Fox and CNN. It's a really simple world where FOX = CNN, but statistically that's highly unlikely on some bias scale. And while you and others would rather make amorphous arguments about CNN's biases, which I'm not saying aren't there, we have numerous incidents that show the insidious and reckless partisan bias of Fox News. Both the National Review and the Weekly Standard are conservative magazines, but its hard to argue that National Review is as partisan just because they both have biases.

Invis: The same thing is going on with your arguments with Fox and CNN. It's a really simple world where FOX = CNN, but statistically that's highly unlikely on some bias scale.

Actualy, re bias scales, a recent study found that CNN is farther left from the center than FOX is from the right of center. I don't remember the name of the study, but I'll try to google a link for you.

And while you and others would rather make amorphous arguments about CNN's biases, which I'm not saying aren't there, we have numerous incidents that show the insidious and reckless partisan bias of Fox News.

Eason Jordon's admission is hardly amorphous. He was forced to admit that CNN withheld information from its viewers re Saddam's rape rooms and torture chambers.

And for the third time, I'll make the point that the Left here continues to ignore: If the MSM [including CNN] was a fair broker of information, why would half their client base have any need to start up a parallel venue in the 80's [AM talk radio] to express their political views?

I have a problem with what I perceived you were saying: coming into a thread, declaring that you haven't read the comments.....

You added:

if you don't have enough respect for the people you would engage with to read their comments, how can you ask them to respect your contribution enough to read it?

Here is what I said "I haven't read all of the posts so I may have missed an argument that could convince me otherwise...."

How is it that you read "declaring that you haven't read the comments"....into "I haven't read all of the posts"?

I don't generalize very much and when I do I tend to insert a caveat (as I did in the post you are referring to) in order to acknowledge the limitations in my knowledge and for the purposes of precision.

Look, if you think it is inappropriate for me to opine on any of the comments made by posters unless I have read each and every post by every contributor...Cool. I will consider it, think about it.

I still would like you to explain how you misperceived my statement that I had not read all the comments to mean that I had read none of them.

A study by a University of Maryland center concluded, “Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions” about Iraq. For example, in 2003, 67 percent of those who relied primarily on Fox wrongly believed the U.S. “found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization.” Only 40 percent of those who relied on print media harbored this illusion, debunked thoroughly by the 9/11 Commission.

An audience that decides for itself, based on “fair and balanced” coverage, ought not to reach monolithic conclusions. Yet, in our 2004 polling with Media Vote, using Nielsen diaries, we found that Fox News viewers supported George Bush over John Kerry by 88 percent to 7 percent. No demographic segment, other than Republicans, was as united in supporting Bush. Conservatives, white evangelical Christians, gun owners, and supporters of the Iraq war all gave Bush fewer votes than did regular Fox News viewers.

-The Hill

I don't have a counter survey for CNN viewers, but I would bet that CNN's viewership despite being smaller has a much more diverse population. Poll after poll also shows that Fox News viewers are greatly misinformed about certain issues, which coincidentally are positioned for Republican advantage.

I have no idea what study that shows that CNN is farther left than Fox News but again it isn't as much about right and left skewed bias, but about partisan hackery. And again, the whole sins of omission is as amorphous as it gets. Also, the talk radio example is about as good an argument for liberal bias, as the vital conservative need for Conservapedia and QubeTV. It's more an example of conservative paranoia that "everything has a liberal bias" than it is for proving an actual liberal bias.

Mindsteps,It seemed likely to me that "I haven't read all of the posts so I may have missed an argument that could convince me otherwise" should be construed as a polite euphemism for "I haven't read the comments" or "I've glanced through the comments quickly but without real engagement"; the words alone support that interpretation, particularly when it was followed by comments that seemed indicative of someone who hadn't read the comments, given you were attacking in very broad terms a position that barely anyone had advocated in the comments. If I misinterpreted it, as I said above, I apologize.

Stating I have not read all of the comments is different than saying that I have not read the comments. The word "all" changes the meaning of the sentence.

You know, I have less of a problem with you voicing concern that I did not read all of the posts, or that I made an unfair generalization, but you added that I was being disrespectful. What would you call someone who blantantly misrepresents what someone else has written?

Mindsteps, I didn't say you were being disrespectful. The second, third and fourth paragraphs of my 3:13 PM comment addressed in a general way a situation where someone had done precisely what you have said you didn't do. Ergo, they don't apply to you.

BTW - "misrepresentation" and "misunderstanding" are not synonyms. By suggesting that I misrepresented rather than misunderstood your comment, you're presuming bad faith - which is disrespectful, particularly when our subsequent discussion eliminates any serious argument that I intended to misrepresent (if I had, I wouldn't have apologized for the misunderstanding, n'est ce pas?).

Those protesting the Dems' boycott of Fox are forgetting two fairly crucial bits of information: in 2004, the Dems *did* have a primary debate on Fox News; Fox News *cut away* from the debate before it ended and their commentators proceeded to mock the candidates. (Any examples of CNN doing this?)

Point 2: Carl Cameron, Fox's chief political reporter, *made up* a negative story--complete fiction--about John Kerry, and posted it on Fox's website as if it was real.

The Eason Jordon thing has already been shot down: "Complete reporting would have jeopardized the lives of Iraqi informants, and confidentiality was ensured to protect the lives of anti-Hussein Iraqi activists and translators."

"why would half their client base have any need to start up a parallel venue in the 80's [AM talk radio] to express their political views?" This question is based on a false assumption: that a neutral, balanced presentation of the news was satisfying conservatives. It is possible, of course, to receive a fair presentation of the news and also want red meat opinion--this is why editorial pages exist. Right-leaning talk radio has succeeded (as have some left-leaning talk show hosts--Ed Shultz springs to mind) for a variety of reasons, but you can't tell me that Michael Savage's five million listeners are satisfied by sober, balanced reporting. Obviously a different dynamic is in play.

And there's more: In 1992, no less an authority than Rich Bond, then-chairman of the Republican National Committee, admitted, "There is no liberal media bias. We're just playing the refs." (e.g., yelling at the media, being very aggressive so as to influence coverage.) (Bond's quote can be found in Eric Alterman's book "What Liberal Media?" I don't have a page number, but he should be in the index.)

By the way--for those who believe there is a liberal media bias--what do you make of Bond's admission, made way back in 1992, when the media climate was not as right-wing as it is today? I'd be *very* interested to hear.

Greg "There is no liberal media bias. We're just playing the refs." (e.g., yelling at the media, being very aggressive so as to influence coverage.) (Bond's quote can be found in Eric Alterman's book "What Liberal Media?"

No, the actual quote is: "There is some strategy to it [bashing liberal media]. If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is ‘work the refs.’ Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack next time." - Rich Bond, Washington Post 8/20/92.

The quote doesn't say what claim it does. But thank you for providing an example of liberal bias, distorting context to reach a false & agenda driven conclusion.

Counter: how do you sqaure Newsweek's Evan Thomas admission:

MR. THOMAS: There's one other base here, the media. Let's talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win and I think they're going to portray Kerry and Edwards I'm talking about the establishment media, not Fox. They're going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and there's going to be this glow about them, collective glow, the two of them, that's going to be worth maybe 15 points"

Greg: The Eason Jordon thing has already been shot down: "Complete reporting would have jeopardized the lives of Iraqi informants, and confidentiality was ensured to protect the lives of anti-Hussein Iraqi activists and translators."

It hasn't been shot down. Eason Jordon merely got ahead of the scandal with a BS excuse that partisans like you would swallow. You really believe CNN incapable of reporting a story like that without burning a source? The only reason they chose not to report it is 1) Saddam would have kicked them out and they would have lost "access" to a muderous tyrant and 2) information about Saddam's rape rooms and torture chambers wouldn't dovetail with their sympathetic narrative of him.

Fen: why would half their client base have any need to start up a parallel venue in the 80's [AM talk radio] to express their political views?"

Greg: This question is based on a false assumption: that a neutral, balanced presentation of the news was satisfying conservatives.

Actaully, thats quite an assumption on your part: ie "conservatives were hungry for propaganda, unlike liberals". That you would think such a thing says alot about your own bias. I'll wager every conservative on this site would prefer a "balanced presentation of the news" to the current MSM fraud. The difference is you think presenting only the liberal side [or attacking strawmen argument] is somehow "balanced".

Greg: Those protesting the Dems' boycott of Fox are forgetting two fairly crucial bits of information: in 2004, the Dems *did* have a primary debate on Fox News; Fox News *cut away* from the debate before it ended and their commentators proceeded to mock the candidates.

Are you talking about this:

"Bloggers like Matt Stoller of mydd.com are more worried about what the network's post-debate spin could be. When Fox broadcast a Democratic candidate debate in September 2003...It cut away early from the show, Stoller said, giving conservative pundit William Bennett first crack at post-debate analysis."

Didn't happen:

"Editor's note: In the above story about Fox News broadcasting an upcoming Democratic presidential debate reported that the channel cut away early from a 2003 debate to go directly to a conservative analyst's spin. While blogger Matt Stoller said that assertion was based on another blogger's eyewitness account of the original broadcast, program transcripts from LexisNexis indicate that the debate ran in its entirety and conservative commentator Bill Bennett was not the first post-debate guest."

What's really going on here: - Giuliani doesn't want to face the NY firefighters who are rightly angry at his exploitation of 9/11 after a poor performance.

- Republicans don't want their base to get too much airtime. Questions on why don't we torture more, we need to invade and occupy more countries and the intolerant theocratic wing of the Republican party will shock independents into supporting Dems for the rest of their days.

- The Republican mindset is constructed on a shaky foundation that requires denial of reality. This format, bypassing wimpy reporters, may shatter that Republican fantasyland.

Alpha: Republicans don't want their base to get too much airtime... The Republican mindset is constructed on a shaky foundation that requires denial of reality. This format, bypassing wimpy reporters, may shatter that Republican fantasyland.

Agree with Simon - total bullshit analysis Alpha. Republicans were on CSPAN last week fielding YouTube vids from the base, the center, and the Left.